Pasquale Santini

The applicant sought a declaration that her homeowner’s insurer owed a duty to defend counterclaims alleging negligent supervision of a child that resulted in injury to her son.

The counterclaims arose after the family sued third parties for injuries sustained by the child, and those defendants sought contribution and indemnity against the applicant.

The insurer denied coverage relying on a policy exclusion for bodily injury to the insured or any person residing in the insured’s household.

The court held that the exclusion, read together with the policy’s liability coverage provisions, clearly removed coverage for claims relating to bodily injury suffered by a household member.

Because the injured child fell within the policy definition of “you”, the insurer had no duty to defend the counterclaims.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the claim against an individual insurance broker employee on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged a longstanding relationship with the broker spanning 11 years, with annual consultations and reliance on the broker as its agent in obtaining and renewing insurance coverage.

The moving parties argued that the broker owed no individual duty of care because he acted within the scope of his employment and any liability would be vicarious.

The court held that Canadian negligence law does not impose a blanket rule preventing employees from owing duties of care to customers of their employer and that such questions depend on the specific factual circumstances.

Given the pleaded longstanding advisory relationship, the claim against the broker had a reasonable prospect of success and could not be struck at the pleadings stage.

The Court considered whether defendants could seek dismissal under Ontario Rule 21.01(3)(a) based on arbitration and forum selection clauses after delivering a statement of defence.

It held that a defence pleading the foreign forum clause does not itself bar a subsequent Rule 21 motion, provided the motion is brought promptly.

Applying the strong-cause framework for displacing contractual forum clauses, the Court found no basis to refuse enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $175,000 to the respondent, Canadian Soccer Association, for breach of a sponsorship agreement.

Hyundai had terminated the agreement without the required 90 days' notice after another sponsor, Tide, withdrew.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that Tide's continued involvement was not a material term of the contract and that Hyundai was required to provide notice of termination.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The League respondents were awarded $15,000, the City of Ottawa was awarded $5,000, and Miles Wolff was awarded $5,000, all inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants, owners of a professional baseball team, sued the Can-Am League, its principals, and the City of Ottawa in Ontario after the League terminated their membership and drew down a letter of credit.

The agreements between the parties contained choice of forum and arbitration clauses designating North Carolina.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellants argued the defendants attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence, and that fundamental breach precluded reliance on the clauses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to show strong cause to displace the choice of forum clause, and that attornment does not prevent a court from declining to exercise its jurisdiction.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a tractor driven by a co-worker.

The Insurer denied statutory accident benefits on the basis that the Applicant knew or ought to have known the vehicle was being driven without the owner's consent.

The arbitrator found that the employer had given the employees keys to the tractor without specific restrictions, implying authority to operate it.

Therefore, the driver had implied consent, and the Applicant was not precluded from receiving benefits under section 17(3)(b) of the Schedule.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming weekly benefits for a substantial inability to perform essential tasks and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that while the Applicant suffered intermittent low back pain from the accident, it did not cause a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks, especially given her pre-existing medical conditions and sedentary lifestyle.

The claim for weekly benefits was dismissed.

The arbitrator allowed a portion of the claimed supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, awarding $816.38, and awarded the Applicant her expenses of the arbitration.